Was The Joint Declaration Truly Justified? | An Interview with Dr. Christopher Malloy |
Carl E. Olson | IgnatiusInsight.com
Was The Joint Declaration Truly Justified? | An Interview with Dr. Christopher Malloy | Carl E. Olson
In October of 1999 the "Joint Declaration On the Doctrine of Justification" (JD)
was signed by representatives from the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the
Catholic Church. These included Dr. Ishmael Noko, General Secretary of the LWF
and Edward Cardinal Cassidy, president (1989-2001) of the Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, who signed the document in Augsburg, birthplace of the
Protestant Reformation. The document elicited a wide range of responses, with
some Protestants (Lutheran and otherwise) and Catholics believing it marked the
end of any substantial disagreements about justification, while others--again,
both Protestant and Catholic--were not convinced that the document answered
satisfactorily a number of substantial questions.
One Catholic critic of the JD was Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., who wrote an essay
critique of the JD in 2002, in the Josephinum Journal of Theology, that highlighted several of his
concerns with the document. But perhaps
the most detailed and lengthy response, at least in English, was published in
Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration (Peter Lang, 2005) was written by
Dr. Christopher J. Malloy, an assistant professor of theology at the University
of Dallas since 2001. In the introduction, Dr. Malloy provides a history of the
JD and then writes:
are two lines of scrutiny that can be pursued in an effort to verify the merits
of the Joint Declaration. On the one hand, its historical implication can be
investigated: Did the original positions of each communion not, in fact,
substantially conflict with one another? ... On the other hand, the contents
proper to the JD can be investigated: Does the JD adequately represent the
teachings of both communities? (p 5)
To answer these two essential questions and many other related questions, Dr.
Malloy divides his book into four major sections. The first, "The Teachings of
the Reformation Era" (pp 19-122), sets forth the Catholic and Lutheran
positions, provides important background material about the Council of Trent,
and explains the meaning and importance of the doctrine of "double justice."
The second part, "Contemporary Attempts at Rapprochement" (pp 123-192),
examines the work of three twentieth-century theologians/schools of theology:
Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Kčng, the Finnish School of Lutheran
theologians, and German Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. Dr. Malloy
shows that of these theologians, only Kčng believed that "no doctrinal
alteration is needed by either Protestants or Catholics."
Part three is "Critical
Analysis of the Joint Declaration" (pp 194-313) and includes chapters on
background dialogues, the essence of justifying grace (both Lutheran and
Catholic paragraphs), and resulting difficulties. Dr. Malloy concludes the
third part with this assessment: "The contents of the Joint Declaration,
therefore, are not merely flawed in isolated cases; they are in organic fashion
contrary to the integrity of the Catholic faith." The fourth and final part,
"Evaluating the Divide" (pp 315-387), contains theological reflections "on the
divergent understandings of the essence of justification" and focuses on five
related questions about the nature of justification.
While academic and rigorous in approach, Engrafted in Christ is accessible to the serious reader who has an
interest in the topics of justification, salvation, and recent ecumenical dialogue.
Although focused on Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, the book's examination of the
teachings of Martin Luther are helpful to those wanting to better understand
the theological disagreements that led to and were addressed by the Council of
Trent. It also provides an excellent explanation of the Catholic understanding of justification, built upon both Scripture and official Church
documents. In light of the ongoing conversations--both formal and informal--between
Catholics and Protestants of many different backgrounds, IgnatiusInsight.com
recently interviewed Dr. Malloy about his book, justification, sola fide, and several interrelated issues.
seems that an increasing number of Catholics and Protestants--including some
Lutherans and Evangelicals (Dr. Mark Noll comes to mind, for example)--are
saying that the issue of justification is no longer a central matter of
division between Catholics and those Protestants who adhere to sola fide and a classical Protestant understanding of
justification. Is that the case? Why or how can those claims be made? Do you
agree, generally speaking, with them?
Dr. Christopher Malloy: As
a famous saying goes, "It all depends", that is, on what the words mean. To cut
to the chase very quickly (more nuance below), "faith alone" is not a common
Catholic way of speaking, since Catholics read Paul's "by faith" as signifying
compactly and by synecdoche a set of gifts: sanctifying grace, faith, hope, and
charity. Many Lutherans would disagree, claiming that Paul's "by faith" does
not signify grace and charity as well. Though he is read quite differently by
different Lutherans, Luther himself has been taken by many to exclude charity
from the faith that justifies, that is, from its justifying character. In his
1531 comments on Galatians 5:16, he contends that we shall not need faith and
hope when we have been thoroughly cleansed. In the meantime, we need faith because we still lack the obedience God
demands. Because we lack the obedience God demands in the law, we are damnable
in his sight--he could damn us unless Christ covered us with his
righteousness. Catholics link the end of the need for faith with the advent of
the beatific vision and not with the final cleansing from damnable sins.
According to this line of thought in Luther, however, it seems that faith's
justifying role is not informed by charity but rather supplemental to the
defects of charity.
Right away, you can see a difference between some interpretations of
"faith alone". As everyone knows, the phrase itself is not in the Scriptures;
Luther did not intend to correct Paul, but to correct certain readings of Paul
that he considered erroneous. It is the meanings and referents of terms,
however, that matter, as Pope Bl. John XXIII taught. One reads "faith alone" in
Aquinas's commentary on Galatians, as one does in Luther's 1531 commentary.
Yet, leaving Luther and his many diverging interpreters aside, I can say that
Thomas emphatically meant the following--that no works before justification can
justify the human person. Faith, for Thomas, is itself the justice by which a
human person "is truly just" in God's sight only if and because it is buoyed by hope and informed by the
charity by which the human person cleaves to God as spouse and friend. Some
Lutherans see these characteristics of "cleaving" to God in faith itself. Here,
there is a significant point of contact between Catholics and some Lutherans;
this agreement needs to be celebrated and also further discussed and
IgnatiusInsight.com: What do you mean by "further discussed and
Dr. Malloy: Well, if
indeed it is true that we have here an agreement about justifying faith, about
that which constitutes the justice of the justified person, about that which
"pleases God" in the justified person, then we by logical consequence agree on
many other things.
IgnatiusInsight.com: Could you spell out those consequences? For
example, are any of these relevant in the pastoral sphere?
Dr. Malloy: There is enormous pastoral import to these matters.
For Catholicism, justification makes the human person truly just--interiorly
and before God--so that the justified has the infused grace and the constant
help of God by which to obey all of the law sufficiently. This means that the
human person can avoid every single mortal sin. More, the human person can, by
infused grace and God's constant help, grow in the very grace by which he is
made truly just. He can merit eternal life by his good works wrought in
charity. He can even merit an increase in eternal life. This is mind-blowing,
truly. God has not only justified but also divinized man! So justified and
divinized, man works with God so as to journey to his eternal abode. If he
violates the commandments, however, he loses the grace by which he is
justified. He sins mortally and merits hell. This is a horrific thought, and
yet it is a real possibility. This is why Catholic moral theologians talk so
much about the "moral object" of various acts. For Catholics, the "moral
object" can be a life-threatening issue. At the end of our lives, as St. John
of the Cross warns us, Jesus will ask each of us, "Did you love me above all?"
Paul even speaks of a judgment according to works as part of his Gospel (Rom 2:16).
I have traced the immediate
pastoral impact, but I wish now to add a bit more depth. The Catholic faith
holds that the human person (justified initially by God's power and not by his
own--although not without his own cooperation if he has the use of free will)
is made clean interiorly. When God infuses grace, he releases man from the debt
of obedience man owed, refused, and could not repay, and God heals the soul,
the intellect, and the will. Therefore, the human person standing before God is
released of past debt and healed of everything damnably offensive; hence, the
person incurs no debt presently. He is not punishable by eternal damnation, for
he renders God what is due (unless he commits a mortal sin).
Therefore, in the Catholic
perspective, sins are not merely "covered" as though there persisted in man
something for which God could damn him. Some Lutherans have read Psalm 32:1-2
and Romans 4:7-8 as though God, in justification itself, simply covers still present
sins. The Catholic faith reads this "covered" language as meaning release from
past debt and a "blotting out" of all that is interiorly offensive to God.
Catholics find a Scriptural basis for this in Psalm 51, the privileged "Sitz im
Leben" of which (for the Jews) was the Day of Atonement (for Catholics, every
Friday at Lauds). In this Psalm, the meaning of the "covering" imagery is
revealed by parallelism in verse 9: "blot out all my iniquities". Psalm 32
itself contends that "there is no deceit" (v. 2) in the person so blessed; he
is "righteous" and "upright in heart" (v. 11). Catholics read Paul similarly:
When Paul says, "None is righteous" (Rom 3:10) he does not mean "not one in all
the world". He means that no one is righteous who has not been justified.
In summary, the Catholic teaching on forgiveness is that God's forgiving
act is totally free and totally effective. God releases man from past offenses
and heals the fallen will so that there is in the justified nothing so
offensive that it could be punished with damnation (unless the man commits a
mortal sin). Hence, "No one born of God commits sin" (1 Jn 3:9), that is, a sin
that is mortal (1 Jn 5:16f), for nearly everyone daily commits "venial" sins (1
Jn 1:8), which of their nature differ from mortal sins. Hence, the justified
human person enjoys a heart restored and recreated by God's grace (Ps 51:10) so
that he can walk in all of God's ways (Ezek 36:25-27), fulfilling the New Law
(Rom 8:4-8). Moreover, as Irenaeus specifies, the New Law is more rigorous than the Old Law (e.g., Mt 5-7). While the Gnostics
thought that Christ destroyed the Law, Irenaeus argued the Christian faith:
What is jettisoned is not the 10 Commandments but the temporary socio-political
and ceremonial laws. What matters is not fleshly "circumcision" but a spiritual
circumcision (Rom 2:29; Gal 6:15) and keeping the divine commandments (1 Cor
7:19; Gal 5:6). Of course, the justified person does not follow the law as a
menial servant (Rom 8:14-15) but as a son, as a friend of God (Ja 2:23; Jn
15:14), for his heart has been circumcised (Deut 30:6f) so that he can obey the
law of love (Deut 6:4-9; Rom 13:10).
In short, the heart of the law has not been destroyed by Christ, contrary to the Gnostic
belief. Rather, the heart of the law has been fulfilled and perfected (Rom
10:4; Mt 5:17-19).
IgnatiusInsight.com: Some might ask, "How can anyone love God with
his 'whole strength'?" This seems impossible to many Christians, even many
Dr. Malloy: You have asked
what may be the crucial question. Of course, no one can love God as much as God
is lovable. No one except God, that is. In fact, even Jesus in his human nature cannot love God as much as God is lovable!
Every creature--and Jesus' human love of God is creaturely--"fails" to love God
infinitely. Does this mean that every creature offends God? Of course not! John
Paul II follows the whole thrust of the tradition when, in Veritatis
Splendor, he distinguishes two sides
of the law. There is a negative lower limit, beneath which one cannot go
without losing friendship with God. Every single mortal sin is a violation of
this lower limit. A "fundamental option" for anger towards God, for total
despair, for surrender to concupiscence, is not a necessary condition for mortal sin. It is
certainly a sufficient condition, but mortal sins are rarely so drastic. One
free act of adultery is a mortal sin. "Thou shalt not" is the negative or
"lower limit" side of the law.
The negative side is has as its end a positive side--the Love of God and
Neighbor! The upward side of the law is limitless. Paul strives for the upward
limit, as should all Christians, for we are all called to radical holiness.
Yet, let us not get scrupulous! Let us not think as follows: "Because we can
love more, therefore we have sinned mortally".
We will likely be imperfect. We will likely sin venially. We will likely
have many imperfections--those only others can see! We must make distinctions:
mortal sin is not venial sin; venial sin is not imperfection; one stage towards
maturity is not necessarily "faulty imperfection". The Orthodox are very good
at underscoring a dynamic of Christian life--that we are born as babes and we
must grow. This is the law of life. It is no fault of the adolescent that he is
a bit awkward in basketball. So too, it is not necessarily a sin, and certainly
not at all a mortal sin, for a Christian to be a bit awkward at an early stage
of growth. Yet, as we grow in our Christian vocation, things that before were
out of our control are now in our control. Hence, if I do now the things I used
to do with impunity, I now do them with culpability. Everyone can love God
more. Everyone can grow in love. ThÄrĆse taught us this, and she lived only
twenty-four years! How quickly we can grow--God's grace is powerful.
This is the most urgent thing for a Christian--to press on in the upward
call of Christ (Phil 3:14). At the beginning of my answer to this question, I
noted how important the question is. I say this because Martin Luther and many
others saw the rigor of the commandment to love God. They felt their
unworthiness acutely in the face of this commandment. Some (e.g., Francis de
Sales and ThÄrĆse) even felt condemned by its rigor. To feel condemned does not
mean that one has committed a mortal sin. Indeed, as some theologians have
argued recently, living saints who love God have this role of suffering in
solidarity with the condemned. In their psyche they feel abandoned, but in the
depths of their hearts they cleave to God, and they never lose the deepest
peace. It is certainly not Catholic to say they are "damned" for the sake of
others, even though their love of God is so great that they fear offending God
infinitely more than they fear any punishment (1 Jn 4:18).
IgnatiusInsight.com: You speak of "experience". I have heard it said
that the Lutheran way of framing things is more closely tied to experience than
is the Catholic way of framing things. Is this true, and if so, in what way?
Dr. Malloy: We must make
some distinctions. Whose experience are we speaking of? There are many saints
who did not describe their experience as a dialectic between "condemning law"
and "forgiving mercy".
But let me get to the spirit of your question. Many Lutherans have drawn
attention to the Lutheran "mode of discourse" as "existential". The Catholic
Magisterium, by contrast, typically speaks "metaphysically". That is, the
Catholic Magisterium speaks objectively by way of describing precisely what
happens when God justifies, identifying the aspects involved: God's agency,
Christ's merit, baptism as the instrumental cause, human acceptance of God's
grace (itself enabled by grace), and the essence itself of justification,
namely, the transformation of an enemy into a friend, a child of wrath into a
son. The "essence" of justification involves what God effects in justifying. In
technical terms, it is the "formal cause" of justification. So, the Catholic
mode of discourse covers the many elements pertinent to this event.
The Lutheran mode of discourse is subjective and personal. Lutherans
describe a particular kind of experience, an acute experience of sinfulness,
mercy, and trust--a trust that bears fruit in love.
I have briefly sketched these two "modes of discourse". There is much
truth to the observation that there is often a difference of mode. Advertence
to this difference in modes of discourse can perhaps mitigate differences.
IgnatiusInsight.com: Do you think that all of the differences can be
explained in terms of different modes of discourse?
Dr. Malloy: I do not think so. Let me cite a text, written in
the 1980s, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: "Simply to trace all these differences
back to misunderstandings is in my eyes a presumptuousness that has its roots
in the Enlightenment and that cannot do justice either to that person's
passionate struggle or to the weight of the realities at issue" (see Church,
Ecumenism, and Politics, p. 104).
The issue Carding Ratzinger was dealing with was precisely Luther's exclusion
of "charity" from justifying faith. Everyone knows, and the Cardinal of course
knew, that Luther holds there to be a charity that begins in the justified
person. Only cheap Catholic apologists of the past denied that Luther spoke of
incipient charity or sanctification. Yet, as many sympathetic readers have read
Luther, he meant by "faith alone" to exclude not merely works performed before
justification but also infused grace and charity from faith's justifying
Now, let me address your
question directly. I would do so in two ways. First, I will take up the issue
of divergent modes of discourse. I believe that this issue poses a legitimate
avenue of inquiry for ecumenical dialogue. Let us say that some Lutherans agree
with the Catholic "metaphysics" of justification. They disagree only with a
certain (let us call it) "traditional reading" of Luther, to which I have
alluded above. If this is true, then, when these other Lutherans speak of sin
"still residing" in the justified person, what do they mean? When they identify
this remaining sin with the very sin that was present before justification,
what do they mean? When, further, they claim that this same sin is of its
nature worthy of eternal punishment, what do they mean? Are they speaking only
"existentially"? Do they mean only, "It is my experience that I feel damned and
unworthy"? Would they agree that this sin is not "real sin, truly of its nature worthy of damnation"?
If they mean these things
only "experientially" and not "metaphysically", then this divergence of
discourse might not indicate a real divergence in doctrine. Much investigation
would need to be undertaken to establish this definitively, however. Moreover,
I think there are pastoral problems with such a mode of discourse in the first
place. For instance, would you want a priest telling a young man that his
"concupiscence for women" is a "true sin, of its nature worthy of damnation"?
Would that priest further this young man's spiritual growth by saying this,
even if he meant it only "existentially"? In fact, Catholic pastoral practice
is much wiser than this other approach, which is quite dangerous and false.
Let's change the subject a bit to make the point more sharply. Say a man
suffering a homosexual tendency were to ask a priest, "Is this tendency a sin"?
The Catholic answer is: "Of course it is not a sin!" That is, no tendency to
sin is a sin, except insofar as a person's freewill choices have fostered the
tendency. Let me add one personal anecdote: I asked a Lutheran convert to
Catholicism the following question: "Do you think you need to repent for
concupiscence?" He could not answer the question. But the Catholic answer is,
"No!" A priest would rightly kick you out of the confessional for confessing
your concupiscence and non-volitional disorders.
This whole matter relates to
those "mortal sins" I mentioned earlier. Catholics do not spread sin out
everywhere; they do not smear it into every good work, as though all human
works are damnable. Trent condemns such smearing. But one of the important
things to observe is this--precisely because Catholics do not "smear" sin
everywhere, they are able to attend to actual sins when they commit them. One
is not a "raging adulterer" unless one is committing adultery, either
physically or with genuine and full "assent" of the mind, which almost always
founds its way into bodily action. Temptation is not sin.
I am not confident that most
Lutherans would want to say that their mode of discourse is purely
"experiential". I am not confident that that they would say, "The sin that
remains, which I 'said' was real sin--It's not true sin, not really." To me, it
would be unhelpful to tell such Lutherans that that is what they mean. Maybe
this is what other Lutherans have meant. But in many cases, I think they want
to be taken at their word, metaphysically, as it were. That's how I read
Luther. In my opinion, he was so agitated about the Catholic reading of Romans
7 because he wanted to be taken seriously (see his lucid Antilatomus). When Luther asks to be taken seriously, and when
one tries to take him seriously, one is not (as some accuse) being
"uncharitable". That is a category mistake. Perhaps such readings of Luther are
inaccurate, but only God knows if the reader is "uncharitable". More to the
point, it begs the question to charge a reading as "uncharitable", since the
reader brings the criteria by which to judge a reading as "charitable" or
"uncharitable". Many Lutherans, for instance, reads Luther in a very
"traditional" manner (explanation on this place-holding name below). Are they
"uncharitable"? Not by their terms! They are trying to be faithful. Let me add
that it is not merely "conservative" Lutherans who would insist on this; Simo
Peura, an outstanding ecumenical Finn with acute intellectual acumen, critiqued
an early draft of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD)
for denying that remnant sin was true sin.
have been broaching an issue that touches on my initial question. I was asking
about what you make of the many claims emerging recently that justification is
no longer a church-dividing doctrine. But you have been noting that there are
different traditions in Lutheranism. How does this affect my question and your
Dr. Malloy: Yes, to get an accurate answer to your question--do
we agree on sola fide?--we need
more than my initial response, which included attention to the Catholic meaning of sola fide. We need to pay attention to the following question:
"Which Lutheranism? Whose Luther?"
Perhaps there are so many
stripes of Lutheranism because of Luther's tendency to "weave" together sundry
lines of thought that are to some extent distinguishable and separable, though
he marshals them together to a certain end. Let me note, briefly, a few
wonderful lines of Luther's thought. He wishes to emphasize God's grace. He
wishes to take sin seriously. He wishes pastorally to steer a middle course
between presumption and despair--this is the path of true faith that works
through love. He wishes to focus on Christ, not on the self. At times--and this
I find quite Catholic on a point disputed for centuries--he argues that if a
believer does not consent to some inclination to sin, then he has not sinned. The implication would appear to be (if we
isolate this strand of thought) that no repentance of this occasion is
necessary or fitting. These and other concerns of his are in themselves quite
amenable to Catholic faith and to Catholic pastoral practice. Notwithstanding,
a reader may easily take from him other lines of thought quite at odds with
Catholic faith. I have noted some already and will note others below.
Leaving Catholic Lutherans
aside for the moment, I am not certain that most Lutherans mean by sola fide what Catholics have to mean if they employ this
phrase. In fact, I am quite concerned that many people--even many Catholics and
perhaps some of those who have recently become Catholic--are under the
misimpression that, since the JD, Catholicism now holds that humans stand just before God by
"faith" apart from charity and apart from observance of the commandments. Many
high-caliber theologians have contended that Catholicism has changed some of
its dogmas on justification. Catholics are rightly horrified to think that some
have gotten this impression. Indeed, some theologians imply by their work that
Catholicism now holds that if a man were to commit what orthodox moral
theologians identify as a "mortal sin" (objectively grave matter, with
knowledge and full assent of the will), he would not necessarily lose the grace
by which he is considered just. Such an implication is most certainly contrary
to the dogma and to the entire tradition of Catholicism. Somehow, these people
have gotten the misimpression that Catholic faith has altered. My book is, in
large part, intended to correct such misimpressions. Catholic faith cannot be
altered--not even by the Pope--though it can develop.
IgnatiusInsight.com: A Catholic theologian whose doctoral dissertation was
on Lutheranism told me that one of the challenges is that when we speak of Lutheran
theology or doctrine, we are faced with several possibilities, including what
Luther wrote, what his immediate followers believed, what traditional Lutheran
statements of faith have said, and what Lutherans today believe. How much of an
issue is that? Is there a contemporary "Lutheran position of
justification"? If so, what is it? Does it differ from what Martin Luther
Dr. Malloy: That
theologian is right on the money, and the issue is very important. When the JD
states that the Catholic presentation of justification in the JD does not
conflict with the Lutheran teachings of the Reformation era, the reader may
ask, "Which teachings, according to which readings?" This question has not been
faced with sufficient rigor. The "Official Catholic Response" makes note of it;
the JD attends to the issue in its third endnote; still, serious discussion has
yet to take place.
There are Lutherans who
criticize some of the traditional teachings of the Lutheran confessions. The
Finns and the great Lutheran theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg, are foremost
examples. Unfortunately, the JD does not acknowledge this intra-Lutheran
situation. Nor are these contemporary Lutherans peripheral to the
dialogue--they are some of its central proponents! Does this imply that many
Lutheran proponents of the JD would reject some of the traditional teachings of
Lutheranism? If so, do they agree with the JD in its implicit claim not to
contradict any of those traditional teachings?
Moreover, when one dialogues
with Lutherans who accept "all" of the traditional teachings--the various texts
enshrined in the Book of Concord--one
encounters many different points of view. Some claim to read these texts in
ways that accord with what I have outlined of the Catholic teaching. Others
read these texts as diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith. Others fall
somewhere in between, noting a number of real and substantial disagreements.
The upshot is this: We do
not have a consensus of interpretation on the very identity of Lutheranism. Therefore,
the JD's claim to reconcile Lutheran and Catholic positions on justification
begs the question: Which Lutheranism?
One of the chief arguments
of my book is to show, according to a somewhat straightforward reading of these
texts, a reading that has not been absent among Lutherans over the centuries,
that the Lutheran communions and Catholicism originally taught contradictory
theses on justification. If my contention is true, then the Catholic Church and
those Lutheran communions following such a reaching of these texts can never
come to full communion on this issue unless one or the other changes its
doctrine. By "change" I mean "alteration" and not organic development. Yet, the
JD implicitly excludes the need for any alteration, any retraction of past doctrines. This is one of
the chief difficulties I raise in my book. So far, the only incisive response
to my argument is but a question: "Which Lutheranism?" Now, if that question is
raised in earnest, I will have succeeded with one of my intentions--to foster a
fruitfully critical reflection on the truth of the ecumenical situation.
Indeed, I hoped my book would elicit just such a question.
the Council of Trent, in its decrees on justification, most concerned with
Luther's ideas, or did it address a range of Protestant teachings?
Dr. Malloy: The Decree on Justification deals with many issues.
We find condemnations of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, mindless Epicureans,
etc. Catholics and Lutherans were at one in fighting such aberrations.
Despite a lamentable lack of
reformation texts at the Council, Trent enjoyed the presence of many very
competent thinkers conversant with the issues, thinkers who could understand a
body of thought and its implications. Contemporary historicists have attempted
to corner the market on truth, thereby depriving theology of the transcendence
of thought. I believe John Paul II and Paul VI--by no means "ahistorical"
thinkers--give theologians solid grounds to fight such historicism and relativism.
In any case, what is
noteworthy is that at the Council of Trent, a number of theologians present
held views that can readily be discerned to be "compromise" positions between
a) what became Tridentine Catholic teaching and b) common elements of certain
Lutheranisms--I will call the latter "traditional Lutheran teaching". By
"traditional Lutheran teaching" I use a place-holder to designate one way of
reading the Lutheran heritage, granting of course that many scholars argue that
there are sundry and contradictory ways of reading that same heritage, some
going all the way back.
Foremost among the
theologians seeking a compromise at Trent was Seripando, a papal legate. At the
Council, he put forth a view on justification that has been called "double
justice". His position implied two formal causes of justification. He argued that the human person
stands "just" before God both by his interior, infused righteousness and by Christ's own righteousness attributed to him
through the acquitting favor of God. Seripando's position had the following
logical correlate: The justified person cannot truly merit eternal life and is
not therefore worthy of heaven--even though God has begun to renovate him
interiorly. The implication is clear: The justified person would, if judged by
God, be worthy of hell. Only a few outstanding saints might be exceptions to
the rule. Hence, the justified person needs yet another justice by which to be
considered just--the justice of Christ, imputed to him.
The Council of Trent
decidedly rejected this theory of double justice. The interior justice infused
by God, together with the obedience issuing therefrom, suffice the Christian
before the judgment seat of God. Of course, one may have to atone for venial
sins and outstanding debt in Purgatory, but such atonement is not at all akin
to the non-imputation of still present, damnable sins. Since a number of
readings of Lutheranism are even further from Catholicism than is double
justice, therefore, the Council of Trent also anathematized the positions found
in such readings. To demonstrate this point was yet another aim of my book.
Of course, the issue "Which
Lutheranism?" returns. If there are readings of Lutheranism--and of the
Lutheran confessions--that do not conflict with Trent, these readings escape
the bite of that argument. I would rejoice to see such readings of Lutheranism
clearly put forth. This would forward the ongoing ecumenical dialogue, to which
we are all committed.
IgnatiusInsight.com: If you had to put it as concisely as possible, what do
you think are the incompatible elements between Catholic and Lutheran
understandings of justification?
Dr. Malloy: Again: Which Lutheranism? If there is a Lutheranism
that does not conflict with the full substance of Trent's teachings on
justification, I rejoice with all my heart. Such a Lutheranism would give
grounds for escaping one of my critiques of the JD. My book raises other
questions regarding the contents of the JD itself, which I see as quite
ambiguous. Given the non-binding character of the document, Avery Cardinal
Dulles and the late great Leo Cardinal Scheffczyk contend that Catholic
theologians are free to critique the document. Many Catholics of various
perspectives agree that the document has weaknesses; some have argued that the
document has basic flaws.
It is my hope that the
critical questions that others and I have raised will be addressed. In a sense, however, these ambiguities and flaws would be
of much less importance to me and other critics if a clearly identifiable
Lutheranism that is compatible with Trent could come into focus. For instance,
if (as one of my Lutheran interlocutors contends) the metaphysical teachings of
Trent are held by many Lutherans, then one need not worry much about any flaws
of the JD except insofar as they might issue in ambiguity and confusion.
Perhaps one could clear up such matters with another document that is carefully
question is about the remaining incompatibilities. I can address this question
by rephrasing it: What are the incompatible elements between Catholicism and
the "other Lutheranisms" that do conflict with Trent?
First of all,
other Lutheranisms--as would be clear if they were asked to express themselves
metaphysically--hold that Jesus Christ's own righteousness justifies us
"formally" by being imputed to us. That is, God "legally declares" that Jesus'
righteousness is ours, even though, metaphysically speaking, his righteousness
remains alien to us, outside of us.
therefore, such Lutheranisms hold that there still remains within us true sin.
This "true sin" can be any of the following: a will bent on mortal sin (in
Catholic terms), venial sins, and even the mere inclination to sin that
precedes free will assent. Each of these sins is labeled "true sin". Further,
each of these is considered to be "per se damnable". That is, God could damn us
because of these sins. That means that in my own interior being, I am a mortal
sinner before God, even if one considers only my "inclination to sin", concupiscence
(Rom 7). Yet, despite this still present damnable sin, I escape punishment
because this sin is not "charged" against me. Instead, Christ's own
righteousness is declared to be mine.
therefore, I cannot truly merit eternal life. Even "after" being justified, I
cannot, in a good work wrought in true charity, merit eternal life. To the
contrary, even my good works are condemnable as sins truly mortal in their
These are three
massive points of disagreement between some Lutheranisms and Trent. Such
Lutheranisms, of course, also hold many things in common with Trent, such as a
rejection of Pelagianism, the primacy of God, the centrality of Christ, the
beginnings of sanctification, the importance of God's will. That is, even these
Lutheranisms truly hold that the justified person is "also" and "at the same
time" sanctified. However, such Lutheranisms emphatically distinguish the
"formal cause" of justification (Christ's own righteousness) and the "formal
cause" of sanctification (sanctifying grace). Moreover, such Lutheranisms also
hold that this sanctification is insufficient. They would radically disagree
with the following beautiful statement of Trent on Baptism: "In those reborn, God hates nothing because there
is nothing damnable in those who
have truly been buried with Christ by baptism.... They are made innocent,
spotless, pure, blameless and beloved sons of God" (Fifth Session). Seripando
fought that statement mightily, but he lost the battle, and he dutifully
acquiesced to the Church.
Let me close with an
observation about a wider but related issue. What did Christ do for our
salvation? Some Lutheranisms espouse a theory of "penal substitution". Jesus
truly became sin itself so that
we would no longer be legally charged with sin, if we have faith (itself a
gift). Such Lutheranisms take 2 Cor 5:21 as a critical text: "For our sake
[God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the
righteousness of God" (see also Gal 3:13). Of course, Catholic tradition denies
that Paul is using the "proper literal sense" here. Rather, Paul is speaking by
"metonymy", signifying the effect by way of the cause. That is, Paul says that
God made Jesus to be "sin" not to
mean that Jesus became sin itself but to mean that Jesus took on a number of
the effects (curses) of sin--suffering and death (see, e.g., Augustine, Contra
Faustum, XIV). After all, Paul is
also speaking by metonymy at the end of this verse, for we humans do not become
the very righteousness of God himself. Paul speaks of the effect by way of the
cause--the righteousness of God that causes our own created righteousness (see,
again, Augustine, Conf, XII,
#20). We become a "new creation" (2 Cor 5:17), not the very essence of God,
though we are being divinized, made like him, for he shall appear to us (1 Jn
3:2). Against certain proto-gnostics (see Raymond Brown's commentary), this is
the reason we purify ourselves (1 Jn 3:3), for one cannot see the Thrice Holy
God without spotless holiness (Heb 12:14). Hence the eschatological urgency in
Paul's exhortations to us to be blameless at Christ's coming (Phil 1:10 and
2:15; Eph 1:4; Col 1:22f; 1 Thess 5:23); his insistence that those who violate
the law will not inherit the kingdom (Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-11); his
reminder that we shall be judged by our works (2 Cor 5:10). Although without
grace such works cannot make us just (Rom 3-4), yet with such grace, we are
healed and we can walk.
Christ became sin itself;
Christ became human, bearing suffering and death for us. These are two very
different and incompatible ways
of reading Paul on atonement. So, too, there have been very different and
incompatible readings of "by faith" in Rom 3:28. Whereas Catholic tradition
sees "by faith" as synecdoche for "faith, hope, love, and grace" (Rom 5 and 1
Cor 13 parceling out what is compact in Rom 3), some Lutheranisms see "by
faith" as meaning "by this trusting faith alone" to the exclusion of the
charity by which we love God above all and satisfy the demands of the law (and
Thanks much for your interview. God bless you richly.
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles:
Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll
Reformation 101: Who's Who in the Protestant Reformation | Geoffrey Saint-Clair
The Tale of Trent: A Council and and Its Legacy | Martha Rasmussen
Evangelicals and Catholics In Conversation, Part 1 | Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
Evangelicals and Catholics In Conversation, Part 2 | Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
Answering The Call To Full Communion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith
Thomas Howard and the Kindly Light | IgnatiusInsight.com
Objections, Obstacles, Acceptance: An Interview with J. Budziszewski | IgnatiusInsight.com
Thomas Howard on the Meaning of Tradition | IgnatiusInsight.com
Surprised by Conversion: The Patterns of Faith | Peter E. Martin
the Insight Scoop Blog and read the latest posts and comments by
IgnatiusInsight.com staff and readers about current events, controversies,
and news in the Church!